Electronic health records slow the rise of healthcare costs

Use of electronic health records can reduce the costs of outpatient care by roughly 3 percent, compared to relying on traditional paper records.

That's according to a new study from the University of Michigan that examined more than four years of healthcare cost data in nine . The "" category in the study included the costs of doctor's visits as well as services typically ordered during those visits in laboratory, pharmacy and radiology.

The study is groundbreaking in its breadth. It compares the of 179,000 patients in three Massachusetts communities that widely adopted electronic health records and six control communities that did not. The findings support the prevailing but sometimes criticized assumption that computerizing can lead to lower healthcare expenses.

"To me, this is good news," said Julia Adler-Milstein, an assistant professor in the U-M School of Information and School of Public Health who led the study. "We found 3 percent savings and while that might not sound huge, if it could be sustained or even increased, it would be a substantial amount.

"That said, when we talk about cost savings, it does not mean that the costs went down, but that the costs did not go up as quickly in the intervention communities. This suggests that adopting electronic records helped slow the rise in healthcare costs."

The communities that computerized their records – Brockton, Newburyport and North Adams – did so in approximately the middle of the study period of 2005-2009. All the communities, including the controls, had applied to be part of the Massachusetts eHealth Collaborative's pilot that gave funding and support for entire cities' worth of doctors' offices to convert their records. To maximize the benefit from computerized records, experts believe it's important that the shift occurs throughout entire communities, rather than piecemeal. This real-world experiment gave the researchers a chance to test that premise.

Adler-Milstein and her colleagues calculated healthcare costs per patient per month, which amounted to 4.8 million data points. They examined not only total cost, but broke the data down by hospital care and outpatient care. They further examined outpatient costs for prescriptions, laboratory and radiology.

They didn't find any savings when they looked at measures of total cost or inpatient cost. The savings showed up when they narrowed the scope to outpatient care.

"That makes sense because the people who adopted electronic records were the community physicians, not the hospitals," Adler-Milstein said. "It's reassuring that the electronic records were adopted on the ambulatory side and that's where we saw the savings."

On average, the researchers estimated $5.14 in savings per patient per month in the communities with electronic health records relative to those without the records. Most of the savings were in radiology, and Adler-Milstein says doctors may have ordered fewer imaging studies because they had better access to patients' medical histories.

Digitizing health records is expected to lead to higher-quality, lower-cost care as well as fewer medical errors. This motivated the passage of the 2009 Health Information Technology for Economic and Clinical Health Act, which created a $27-billion incentive program to encourage doctors and hospitals to adopt .

Critics of using taxpayer dollars to fund electronic health records argue that use of these systems could actually raise because they make it easier to order tests, and they could be used to justify higher reimbursement.

"I think our findings are significant because we provide evidence to support the use of taxpayer dollars to invest in ," Adler-Milstein said. "We really have not had compelling evidence that proved that they would save money. It was assumed, but there are a lot of skeptics. This study helps clarify whether there are cost savings and what the magnitude of those are in the near-term."

More information: The study, "Effect of Electronic Health Records on Health Care Costs: Longitudinal Comparative Evidence from Community Practices," is published in the July 16 edition of Annals of Internal Medicine.

Related Stories

Doctors who adopt electronic health records may lose money

date Mar 05, 2013

Physician offices that move to electronic health record systems, but don't make additional changes in the practice to enhance revenue and cut costs for services no longer needed, stand to lose money, a University ...

E-records linked to fewer malpractice claims

date Jun 26, 2012

(HealthDay News) -- Malpractice claims dipped dramatically among Massachusetts physicians after they began using electronic medical records, according to new research, although it's not clear whether the ...

Recommended for you

Should men cut back on their soy intake?

date 2 hours ago

Recently, a friend called my husband to inquire about the risks for men in consuming too much soy milk. He had read an article that described how one individual's plight led him down the path of breast enlargement, and was ...

Probing Question: What is umami?

date 2 hours ago

The next time you're at a dinner party and want to spice up the conversation, you might compliment the hosts on their umami-rich appetizers. Then wait a moment until someone invariably asks, "What's umami?"

Will the Affordable Care Act eliminate health disparities?

date 4 hours ago

Massachusetts' health reform may be a crystal ball for researchers and policymakers in forecasting the potential impact of the Affordable Care Act. Many see the ACA as the backbone of efforts toward closing the nation's health ...

Experts question election pledges on GP access

date 15 hours ago

As the general election in the UK approaches, experts writing in The BMJ this week question whether the party promises on access to general practice are likely to be achievable.

User comments

Please sign in to add a comment. Registration is free, and takes less than a minute. Read more

Click here to reset your password.
Sign in to get notified via email when new comments are made.